Divisional play means one loss not the end

Love them or hate them, there is no denying that the Big Ten's new divisions have been positive in at least one way:

Love them or hate them, there is no denying that the Big Ten's new divisions have been positive in at least one way:

Players who already would have been trying to convince themselves that the Gator, Insight or Texas bowls wouldn't be such a bad place to end the season (you know who you are, Buckeyes) got up yesterday still dreaming about an appearance in the first conference championship game and a Rose Bowl bid.

Under the old system, Ohio State would likely have been all but buried with two conference losses; under the divisional setup, the Buckeyes had a chance to reach the league title game by winning out if Leaders front-runner Penn State lost once more outside of its Ohio State game.

That didn't figure to be easy, but that wasn't the point. The Buckeyes had already lost to Nebraska and Michigan State - and the University of Miami in the nonconference season - yet, two days before Halloween, they still had a reasonable chance to get to the Rose Bowl.

This is a little like baseball's wild card, which enabled the St. Louis Cardinals to sneak into the playoffs on the last day of the regular season and go on to win the World Series. It is a whole new world for Big Ten teams.

"Ultimately it comes down to us taking care of our own business," coach Luke Fickell said. "Whether you need help, there's always a light at the end of the tunnel."

It seems like just about everybody can see the light, too. The Buckeyes' incredible opportunity was just one example of how the new two-division setup has opened things up for more teams.

Entering yesterday's games, five Big Ten teams - Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa and Penn State - were guaranteed a trip to Pasadena if they won the rest of their games. Nebraska's win over Michigan State opened up possibilities for Michigan and Iowa. This free-for-all would have been a near impossibility under the old system.

In previous seasons, Wisconsin's dramatic last-play loss to Michigan State would have all but ended the Badgers' chances of getting to the Rose Bowl.

Even if the Spartans had lost again (as they did yesterday to Nebraska), they would still have possessed the tiebreaker advantage by virtue of having beaten Wisconsin. In the new, two-divisional world, all that loss did was reduce the Badgers' margin for error. The schools are in separate divisions, and divisional games are more important.

Traditionalists say there is a price to pay for this new, give-everybody-hope system: The unbeaten team that simply would have gone to the Rose Bowl or the national-championship game under the old system could lose to a less-worthy, one- or two-loss team in the league title game and find itself stuck in a secondary bowl.

But at this point in the season, with more than half of the teams in the league have legitimate hopes of going to Pasadena, it seems like a small price to pay.

The two-division setup didn't solve all of the Big Ten's problems. While the crowded, down-the-stretch stampede for the Rose Bowl might be good for business (and TV), the overall quality of play apparently hasn't improved.

In recent years, when Ohio State was rolling to six consecutive league titles, the Buckeyes were usually the only Big Ten team with a shot at the national title game; this year, with OSU sporting three losses and no unbeaten teams left, the conference has none.

A league that had no unbeaten and five one-loss teams entering play yesterday couldn't get even one team into the top 10 of the BCS rankings.

Parity is great for the fans and the league's also-rans. It's just not so good for the Big Ten's national reputation.